Legal experts decried what they called the 'weaponization' of criminal justice to stop Donald Trump from being elected president

[Vambram]

Trump verdict has started 'war of weaponization of the criminal justice system,' legal experts warn

Legal experts say the former President Trump's conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in New York has 'weaponized' the justice system for politics.

www.foxnews.com

Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz is among those who have called the facts of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case against Trump an "absolute joke." He warned on Friday that if Trump can't get justice in New York through the appeal process, it'll be open season for Republican prosecutors to target Democrats in deep-red districts.

"This is the beginning of a war of weaponization of the criminal justice system," Dershowtz said on "Mornings with Maria" on FOX Business. "The legal system failed. Our system of checks and balances, which is the great contribution that the American Constitution made, failed yesterday."

But Staten Island criminal defense attorney Louis Gelmorino said Bragg and other Democratic officials who made campaign promises to prosecute Trump should never have been allowed to move their cases forward.

"Letitia James, Fani Willis and Alvin Bragg all campaigned on the fact that they were going to get Trump. They all got elected and they all went right after Trump. And they all should've been recused, everyone in their offices, should've been recused because of the statements they made on the campaign trail," said Gelormino, referencing New York Attorney General Letitia James and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in Atlanta.

 

[AlexB23]

Trump verdict has started 'war of weaponization of the criminal justice system,' legal experts warn

Legal experts say the former President Trump's conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in New York has 'weaponized' the justice system for politics.

www.foxnews.com

By the way, just so everyone knows, Alan Dershowitz is on the Democratic side. While I still agree with the court's verdict, it does show that there could be some unfair stuff going on (and who knows, in the future, both parties could use trials as a form of war), so we might want to heed Mr. Dershowitz's warning. We will have to see if the other three trials are fairer compared to the first trial. However, I do still accept the verdict.

From the BBC: Larry Hogan, a moderate Republican who is running for an open Senate seat in liberal-leaning Maryland, took to social media to urge all Americans to “respect the verdict and the legal process”.

Attack Trump verdict or be exiled - a new test for Republicans

A moderate who urged Americans to respect the verdict was warned "you just ended your campaign".

www.bbc.com

 

[Fantine]

You could find at least as many who found the charges appropriate. Fox News is highly biased.

Here's how I feel: Legal experts all say the other three cases are not only more serious but also more slam dunks for the prosecution. Three of four cases have a common thread--election interference.

But the other cases might not be held before November.
Georgia: Fani Willis watch hunt. A defendant must really be guilty if his only defense is bedroom snooping and trying to destroy the Fulton County DA.

DC: The Supreme Court is deciding whether a convicted felon deserves lifetime immunity--and several judges are so corrupt abd dishonest it might work.

W. Palm Beach: Obstructionist judge so obviously biased even her appellate court is censoring her.

But NYC ran the gauntlet of overpaid attorneys with neverending motions and succeeded.

If his team's chicanery protects him for his crimes, NYC will be the only one.

I love NY.

 

[Vambram]

Alan Dershowitz is not highly biased.
Is Staten Island criminal defense attorney Louis Gelmorino highly biased?

Are the following DA's highly biased against Trump?
"Letitia James, Fani Willis and Alvin Bragg all campaigned on the fact that they were going to get Trump. They all got elected and they all went right after Trump. And they all should've been recused, everyone in their offices, should've been recused because of the statements they made on the campaign trail," said Gelormino, referencing New York Attorney General Letitia James and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in Atlanta.

 

[Fantine]

In the context of fighting corruption I believe that's appropriate.
James should aggressively pursue tax frauds because NY citizens pay high taxes that are higher when people like DJT evade half a billion.
Fulton Co. Voters have seen Georgia try to discourage their votes. Then they saw an outright attempt to steal an election--recorded on a phone! Willis should be their champion.
Vance abandoned a lengthy, costly investigation...Bragg wanted to assure taxpayers that work would not be wasted.
It's expensive to bring justice to billionaires.
Like pharmaceutical companies in class action suits, they try to make it so expensive and lengthy a process that the opposition tends to drop out.

 

[Vambram]

In the context of fighting corruption I believe that's appropriate.
James should aggressively pursue tax frauds because NY citizens pay high taxes that are higher when people like DJT evade half a billion.
Fulton Co. Voters have seen Georgia try to discourage their votes. Then they saw an outright attempt to steal an election--recorded on a phone! Willis should be their champion.
Vance abandoned a lengthy, costly investigation...Bragg wanted to assure taxpayers that work would not be wasted.
It's expensive to bring justice to billionaires.
Like pharmaceutical companies in class action suits, they try to make it so expensive and lengthy a process that the opposition tends to drop out.

I expected that kind of answer.

 

[Fantine]

Try this:
DA's are supposed to prosecute criminals, representing the public good.

Obviously they believe the defendants they're prosecuting are guilty. Not because of "hate," but because of evidence.

Trump is an easy target because he has committed these crimes in plain sight.

Ruminating today, it occurred to me that Mr. Trump has interfered in elections in so many ways, we need investigative journalists to see if he's doing it now.

Michael Cohen won't write the checks so if he is paying people off now how is he doing it? Cryptocurrency? Truth Social stock? Giving the payee insider info about when to buy and sell?

If he had a probation officer, then if he was committing some form of election crime it would be immediate jail time.

 

[Vambram]

Obviously they believe the defendants they're prosecuting are guilty. Not because of "hate," but because of evidence.

Trump is an easy target because he has committed these crimes in plain sight.

There are more than a few legal experts whom have publicly disagreed strongly with these statements concerning DA's who ran on a political platform of "getting Trump."

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Find anyone other than Dershowitz saying this and maybe I’ll believe it. He’s just another Fox News talking head preaching to the choir.

 

[Vambram]

Find anyone other than Dershowitz saying this and maybe I’ll believe it. He’s just another Fox News talking head preaching to the choir.

Read the article. There are others besides Dershowitz. By the way, according to Dershowitz, he has never voted for Trump. Dershowitz has always in the past voted for Democratic Party politicians if I recall correctly what I have heard him says.

 

[A2SG]

There are more than a few legal experts whom have publicly disagreed strongly with these statements concerning DA's who ran on a political platform of "getting Trump."

As many as Fox News could find, I'm sure.

-- A2SG, no doubt those lawyers are hoping to get on the constant Trump Needs Lawyers bandwagon....

 

[Vambram]

Read the article.

 

[Fantine]

Dershowitz also defended OJ.

Is he now "the apologist for the guilty?"

 

[A2SG]

Dershowitz also defended OJ.

Is he now "the apologist for the guilty?"

Well, he is a defense attorney.

-- A2SG, kind of part of the job description, really.....

 

[Pommer]

Alan Dershowitz has opinions?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Read the article. There are others besides Dershowitz.

Yes, a whole two others. Hardly a convincing case. Let's look at their arguments:

Louis Gelormino, a Staten Island defense attorney, says that Bragg and James should have recused because they ran on prosecuting Trump. Last I checked, Alvin Bragg and Letitia James were not the prosecutors for Trump's New York trial, so there's nothing for them to recuse from. Furthermore, before Trump could be charged, prosecutors first had to convince a grand jury that the charges had merit. The purpose of such a procedure is to remove concerns about prosecutorial bias. Does Mr. Gelormino not trust the grand jury to review charges in a fair manner?

Dave Gelman, a New Jersey defense attorney (and former deputy DA) says that this is the first time anyone in New York has been tried for this type of crime. Which is technically correct - however, at least three different people have been charged under statute 17-252 since the 1970s; the cases were later dropped before going to trial. The reason why it isn't used very often is that, in most cases, people who have violated that statute have also committed more significant crimes.

So yeah, not a lot there.

By the way, according to Dershowitz, he has never voted for Trump. Dershowitz has always in the past voted for Democratic Party politicians if I recall correctly what I have heard him says.

Yes, yes, Dersh is a Democrat, yadda yadda. He still never misses a chance to defend Trump. The smokescreen is wearing a little thin at this point.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Louis Gelormino, a Staten Island defense attorney, says that Bragg and James should have recused because they ran on prosecuting Trump. Last I checked, Alvin Bragg and Letitia James were not the prosecutors for Trump's New York trial, so there's nothing for them to recuse from. Furthermore, before Trump could be charged, prosecutors first had to convince a grand jury that the charges had merit. The purpose of such a procedure is to remove concerns about prosecutorial bias. Does Mr. Gelormino not trust the grand jury to review charges in a fair manner?

Bragg is the prosecutor for the Trump business records falsification case in Manhattan as he is the elected DA of New York County. His employees were the ones in the court room and he sat behind them at trial several times.(In a similar fashion James was the supervisor of the attorneys in the civil business fraud case and frequently appeared in court during trial.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Bragg is the prosecutor for the Trump business records falsification case in Manhattan as he is the elected DA of New York County. His employees were the ones in the court room and he sat behind them at trial several times.(In a similar fashion James was the supervisor of the attorneys in the civil business fraud case and frequently appeared in court during trial.

I know their offices were involved, but did they have any personal involvement in the cases aside from a supervisory role?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I know their offices were involved, but did they have any personal involvement in the cases aside from a supervisory role?

It would be Bragg and James that made the decisions to proceed with the cases and bring charges.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It would be Bragg and James that made the decisions to proceed with the cases and bring charges.

Which still had to pass the grand jury.